homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Your News!   » Assault Weapons Ban (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: Assault Weapons Ban
GMx

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1523

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 08, 2004 18:25      Profile for GMx     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
Edit: sorry went completely off topic. Who was it that does the line about letting everyone have guns but banning ammunition [Wink]

Chris Rock. But he said that they should make one bullet cost $5000. So if somebody got mad at somebody, they'd have to wait a long time saving money just to buy the bullet they'd shoot them with.
Posts: 5844 | From: S-4, Area 51 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
dragonman97

SuperFan!
Member # 780

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 08, 2004 18:41      Profile for dragonman97   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
maybe I'm paranoid, but has anyone considered that buying an assault weapon might put one on some government list with names like osama b.l.? (looking over shoulder cautiously)

"please allow 4 to 6 weeks for delivery"

You'd better give me a damn good reason why anyone needs an assault weapon...and I probably still won't buy it (the reason). I don't think they should be manufactured at all - let alone even bought by the military/LEAs. No one needs an *assault* weapon - I mean, WTF is up with this? Can't we all get along, and stop producing weapons of mass killing? As prior posters have said - the weaker the weapons we all have, the harder it is to kill others, and the more personal it gets. If we're going to grow at all as a society, we must stop the killing.

--------------------
There are three things you can be sure of in life: Death, taxes, and reading about fake illnesses online...

Posts: 9331 | From: Westchester County, New York | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 09, 2004 01:32      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Having witnessed gun control debates on this forum before, and coming from a country where it is a now a complete non issue, it seems completely insane and inexplicable to me (and I suspect everyone else outside the US) that anyone can try to argue in favour of your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I just cannot begin to understand how ASM and his like can believe one iota of their own arguments.

The US is a very very strange place.

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
fishd
Mini Geek
Member # 2416

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 09, 2004 06:08      Profile for fishd     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
it seems completely insane and inexplicable to me (and I suspect everyone else outside the US) that anyone can try to argue in favour of your constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

This is the kind of thing I was thinking in the "A question about America" thread before, I really can't see how anyone can believe that the US government would tolerate any kind of armed uprising by local militia... do you really believe that your politians would hand over power to NRA members? Without a fight? Fancy seeing US soldiers being deployed on US soil to fight US citizens?

Scary. [Frown]

--------------------
--
Yeah, what he said... but funnier.

Posts: 59 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Doco

SuperFan!
Member # 371

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 09, 2004 06:51      Profile for Doco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know why - but I feel compelled to reply to at least some of the arguments here.

First - I don't have a problem with an assault weapon ban - IF you could define an assault weapon. The current ban defines it as having at least 2 of the 3 following items - a bayonet mount, a flash surpressor, a foldable stock. Have only 1 and the gun is legal. (The current ban also outlaws new magazines over a certian size - but that is a separate item) Those 3 things aren't what most people think of when they think of an "assault" weapon. They think of anything that spews out a lot of lead. That is pretty much the definition of what a gun is supposed to do and banning that would ban guns - something that our constitution prohibits. Weapons that are essentially an AK-47 or M-16 clone without the fully automatic features and with just 1 of those 3 things have been sold continiously throughout the ban. The cosmetic differences banned by the expiring assault weapon ban really don't do anything. Fully automatic weapons have been tightly regulated for a long time before and still will be after this ban exprires. The problem is that you can not create a good definition that doesn't also ban a lot (maybe even a majority??) of common sport / hunting rifles.

Of those - a bayonet mount - that would be a very personal way of killing someone, and not something used in any of the scare stories spread by the media. The other two also have NOT been a factor in most killings before or after the ban. So please get past the name of "assualt weapon ban" and look at the real details of the law. It is just another feel good law that doesn't really do much in the real world. The registration and waiting periods have probably had much more of an impact than this silly assault gun ban.

The second point I wanted to make is that - No, I don't think that a citizen uprising using weapons is likely and the very thought of our own army fighting citizens is very damn scary. It would result in huge loss of life. I hope and pray that our country never again has to have a violent turnover of our government. Democracy helps to make sure that changing the government to meet the people's needs is a non-violent process. However, this democracy thing in the US is relatively new in the view of world history and I believe that we always need to be vigalent against despots that might hijack the process.

A third point is that I can't make an argument for why I need an assault weapon - I don't. But what I define as an "assault weapon" is only those that are fully automatic. That is not what is at stake with this assault weapon ban that is about to expire. My 30-06 is a wonderful gun for hunting deer. An animal in my area that desperately needs to be controlled more because of overpopulation, damage to crops, and many highway accidents (and some of those are fatalities). That weapon is a semi-automatic rifle that can shoot several high velocity shots in rapid succession. Please show me a definition that would outlaw the kinds of weapons used to shoot up schools, but not outlaw one of the most safe, effective, and popular weapons used for game hunting. I have yet to read of a definition that can distinguish between the two. (Mostly because there are not many differences other than maybe the paint job on the guns)

I guess I don't "need" a weapon, but I do have a pretty strong desire to be able to shoot the stray dog I caught last night killing some of our chickens. A fence isn't practical, the dog is harming my property and even if you call the authorities they can't do anything unless they can catch the animal - a highly unlikely event. Fortunately the constitution provides that I don't have to argue for my right to keep a weapon - just as it provides for our right to be able to argue about this (and anything else we want to).

Posts: 419 | From: Minneapolis, MN | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
littlefish
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 966

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 09, 2004 06:59      Profile for littlefish   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Having witnessed gun control debates on this forum before, and coming from a country where it is a now a complete non issue,
How is gun control in the UK a non issue? it is still possible to buy a shotgun and go kill with it. Rifles are still legal as well. Handguns (above .22) were banned after Dunblane (IMHO, a dumb kneejerk reaction which has done little to increase public safety, but a lot to the people who enjoy target shooting). Automatic weapons are also not legal, but then they never were.

All firearms must be kept in a locked cabinet when not in use, and a number of checks are needed before you can get a license.

Posts: 2421 | From: That London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erbo
BlabberMouth, the Next Generation
Member # 199

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 09, 2004 14:28      Profile for Erbo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's straighten some things out (and yes, I know I'm shoving my head in the lion's mouth yet again on this...it's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it [Smile] ):

The guns that were banned by the 1994 ban are not "assault weapons." They are all semiautomatic weapons. You pull the trigger once, one--and only one--bullet comes out the muzzle. (Unless the gun is malfunctioning, but, in that case, it's hazardous and shouldn't be fired anyway until it's fixed.) To fire a second bullet, you have to release the trigger and pull it again.

Real assault weapons--i.e. full auto rock'n'roll--were banned and/or heavily restricted by other, earlier laws, such as the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. They will not suddenly become legal when the 1994 AWB sunsets. (To own one legally, you have to have a special permit from the government, which is tough to get. And even then, some states prohibit them entirely.)

What were banned by the AWB were certain design features of guns and their magazines. None of those features affected the basic operation of the firearm. That's why some people say that the law's definition of "assault weapons" basically amounted to "Guns that look scary."

Frankly, some of the design features that were banned by the AWB are actually good things to have on a firearm. A folding stock makes it easier to store or transport a rifle, and, if it's a telescoping stock, makes it easier to fit the rifle to the person who's shooting it. A pistol grip makes it easier and more comfortable to shoot a weapon, especially for extended periods. Flash hiders ensure that the gun doesn't blind you as much when you shoot at night. Barrel shrouds are actually a safety feature, ensuring that the gun won't burn you if you grab it in the wrong place after you've been shooting awhile. (You see how wacked this law was? Banning safety features in the name of "controlling crime"!) And "high capacity" magazines (which are really standard-capacity magazines, as they were standard before the 1994 AWB limited capacity to 10 rounds) allow you to shoot longer before needing to stop and reload, and/or to have more ammo at your disposal in a self-defense situation.

I for one welcome the AWB sunset. It was "feel-good" legislation, enacted supposedly for the purpose of "crime prevention," that had not one thing to do with actually preventing crime.

--------------------
See more From The Erbo Files: www.erbosoft.com/blog/

Posts: 1480 | From: Denver, CO, US | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
drunkennewfiemidget
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2814

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 09, 2004 15:06      Profile for drunkennewfiemidget     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fully-automatic: hold down trigger, fires more than one round.

Semi-automatic: Each time you press the trigger, one round is discharged. To shoot again, you release, and re-squeeze the trigger.

Not-automatic: You need to either reload the chamber and/or pull back the hammer before squeezing the trigger to fire each round.

Just for clarification. [Big Grin]

Posts: 4897 | From: Cambridge, ON, Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted September 09, 2004 15:33      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A folding stock makes it easier to store or transport a rifle, and, if it's a telescoping stock, makes it easier to fit the rifle to the person who's shooting it
More like: Easier to conceal

quote:
A pistol grip makes it easier and more comfortable to shoot a weapon, especially for extended periods.
Again, easier to conceal, also, as you suggest for comfort.

quote:
Flash hiders ensure that the gun doesn't blind you as much when you shoot at night.
No. Flash suppressors are designed so the enemy has a lesser chance of getting a visual on your location.

quote:
Barrel shrouds are actually a safety feature, ensuring that the gun won't burn you if you grab it in the wrong place after you've been shooting awhile
Again, no. Barrel jackets are actually design to dissipate heat from the barrel. Anyone who knows anything about firearms know not to touch a hot barrel.

--------------------
(!) (T) = 8-D

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 09, 2004 15:41      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erbo:
And "high capacity" magazines (which are really standard-capacity magazines, as they were standard before the 1994 AWB limited capacity to 10 rounds) allow you to shoot longer before needing to stop and reload, and/or to have more ammo at your disposal in a self-defense situation.

/me tries to imagine a plausible scenario in which an 'armed citizen' needs to fire more than 10 rounds on an assault rifle in 'self defence'.

still trying.........


still trying .....

give up.

/me now tries to imagine why a nutter who's attacking a bunch of innocent people, or a drug dealer who's holding off a few carloads of local police might like to fire off more than 10 rounds.

That one was much easier.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10668 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted September 09, 2004 16:24      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
/me tries to imagine a plausible scenario in which an 'armed citizen' needs to fire more than 10 rounds on an assault rifle in 'self defence'.

still trying.........


still trying .....

give up.


Here's one: You are an Iraqi, trying to eek out a living for your family in war torn Baghdad. Death and destruction at the hands of America is all your young children know....suddenly a platoon of American soldiers enters and begins ransacking your home.....

/sarcasm

--------------------
(!) (T) = 8-D

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bibo
BlabberMouth, the Next Generation
Member # 1959

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 09, 2004 16:48      Profile for Bibo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What next? Gun control for dogs?

Pup shoots man

....A man who tried to shoot seven puppies was shot himself when one of the dogs put its paw on the revolver's trigger.....

Nice shooting rex, the owner deserved what he got! [thumbsup]

Posts: 1641 | From: Grand Rapids, MI | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 09, 2004 18:09      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibo:
What next? Gun control for dogs?

Pup shoots man

....A man who tried to shoot seven puppies was shot himself when one of the dogs put its paw on the revolver's trigger.....

Nice shooting rex, the owner deserved what he got! [thumbsup]

paws for thought....

But ... but ... they weren't even gun dogs .....

This story is perilously close to the old joke about the right to arm bears .....

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10668 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 09, 2004 18:16      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:
Here's one: You are an Iraqi, trying to eek out a living for your family in war torn Baghdad. Death and destruction at the hands of America is all your young children know....suddenly a platoon of American soldiers enters and begins ransacking your home.....

But the military has exemptions from these sorts of laws, so they can carry assault rifles all they want.

Surely you weren't suggesting the Iraqi needed one? After all, he shouldn't have built his house on an oil field in the first place [Wink]

--------------------
6 weeks to go!

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 09, 2004 18:18      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibo:
What next? Gun control for dogs?

Pup shoots man

....A man who tried to shoot seven puppies was shot himself when one of the dogs put its paw on the revolver's trigger.....

Nice shooting rex, the owner deserved what he got! [thumbsup]

He should have stuck with killing kittens!

/be here all week, don't forget to tip the waitresses

--------------------
6 weeks to go!

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 09, 2004 18:52      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by csk:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibo:
What next? Gun control for dogs?

Pup shoots man

....A man who tried to shoot seven puppies was shot himself when one of the dogs put its paw on the revolver's trigger..... ?

Nice shooting rex, the owner deserved what he got! [thumbsup]

He should have stuck with killing kittens!

/be here all week, don't forget to tip the waitresses

you mean like these 'kitten killers' ? [Frown]

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10668 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 09, 2004 19:14      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by csk:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibo:
What next? Gun control for dogs?

Pup shoots man

....A man who tried to shoot seven puppies was shot himself when one of the dogs put its paw on the revolver's trigger..... ?

Nice shooting rex, the owner deserved what he got! [thumbsup]

He should have stuck with killing kittens!

/be here all week, don't forget to tip the waitresses

you mean like these 'kitten killers' ? [Frown]
I didn't actually. That's fscking sick [Frown]

--------------------
6 weeks to go!

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Doco

SuperFan!
Member # 371

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 10, 2004 07:27      Profile for Doco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibo:
What next? Gun control for dogs?

Pup shoots man

....A man who tried to shoot seven puppies was shot himself when one of the dogs put its paw on the revolver's trigger.....

Nice shooting rex, the owner deserved what he got! [thumbsup]

I love it!!! The guy did get what he deserved - at least the part about getting shot by being so stupid.

I disagree with charging the guy for cruelty to animals. He couldn't find someone to take them so shooting them probably was as humane as is available to most of us. Cruelty would be drowning the dogs, or maybe bludgeoning them, not a quick bullet to the head..... Yes you can take animals to the pound or have them euthanized at a vet but both cost $$$ in almost all situations. Yes you can probably find a shelter that says they will take animals at no charge but when go to drop them off they will pressure you about some abandonment charge and only relent if you basically just drop the animals and run. It is nice to say that you don't want to kill animals, but then coming up with the money to support that is another issue.

Oh wait - sorry - I should be ranting about gun control.... hmmmmm - (digging into tired cliche bag) - that guy needs more gun control - he couldn't hit his intended target.

-Sigh- my rants here are probably don't connect with many of you, but something about this thread just got me going and pulled me out of lurkdom. I guess being a geek but living in a semi-rural area and being raised with an extended family all in farming gives me a decidedly different view on some issues.

Posts: 419 | From: Minneapolis, MN | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 10, 2004 17:31      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doco:
I guess being a geek but living in a semi-rural area and being raised with an extended family all in farming gives me a decidedly different view on some issues.

My sister and (until recently) parents live on farms (although they're not actually 'farmers'). They, and most of their neighbors, keep a .22 handy for dispatching the occasional fox.

I don't know of anyone in the 'gun control lobby' who's trying to take those kind of guns away. Aside from the practical impossibility of it, .22 rifles are not the weapon of choice for criminals and nutters.

Any farmer who thinks he needs an assault-rifle or a Tec-9 to keep the foxes out of the hen-house is a wanker.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10668 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erbo
BlabberMouth, the Next Generation
Member # 199

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 14, 2004 01:00      Profile for Erbo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just a postscript now that the AWB has officially sunset...

This article points out an interesting little factoid:
quote:
Semiautomatic rifles never did catch on in a big way with career criminals, because they are too difficult to carry concealed. As a National Institute of Justice study noted in July, using a broad definition of the term, assault weapons were used in fewer than eight percent of gun crimes even before the ban. The firearm of choice for armed criminals has always been the high-quality handgun.
Makes sense to me.

Of course, the gun-grabbers are already finding new kinds of guns to demonize. Out in California, on the Governator's desk right now is a bill to ban .50 rifles, which the gun-grabbers have been saying is "the choice of terrorists." This despite the fact that only one crime committed using a .50 rifle has ever been recorded in the United States. (For one thing, they're expensive, and hence very uncommon in civilian use.) Now, if Ahnold decides to be a "girly man" and sign the bill, among other things, Barrett Rifles will probably have to move out of state. This is one of the primary manufacturers of .50 rifles, for both civilian and military purposes. Doing this will only hurt California's economy all the more.

--------------------
See more From The Erbo Files: www.erbosoft.com/blog/

Posts: 1480 | From: Denver, CO, US | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
CommanderShroom
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2097

Member Rated:
4
Icon 2 posted September 14, 2004 05:34      Profile for CommanderShroom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First let me state that I don't own guns at all. I have no reason to own a rifle or a pistol. I did debate whether or not I wanted a little 14ga for home security but opted out. I live in the suburbs and can't find a real reason to have one.

Now as far as this whole gun debate. I know people that can pick up the real thing for me. No AK-47 semi-auto. Full auto modded mac-10s and bigger. Needless to say these are people that do some questionable things. But even they choose a 9mm or .380 over an assault rifle.

Anyone I know that has a weapon like that play with them. "Let's get out in the hills and shoot stuff" kind of mentality. Not postal worker types.

I grew up with a multitude of guns in the house. Some pistols and such. Mainly rifles and shot guns. My father hung his favorites on the wall. On a rack with no locks or cases above the couch. Big deal, so did my friends fathers and our grandfathers, etc. I was taught to use and respect guns from an early age. In that teaching came the simple lesson. This will kill.

If they wanted to ban anything how about the pistols that can go through metal detectors without setting alarms? How about small arms? What f'n use are they. The range is crap the price is cheap and you can get them anywhere. Those are the weapons of choice. Who can wander around the streets with a sawed off shotgun or an AK? OK it has happened, but this is the exception not the rule.

The problem I saw with the gun ban is that it went after the scary guns, not the most used guns. The things they banned were first harder to procure and second were costly. Not a low life thug's weapon of choice. Which is what they used as the reason for this law in the first place.

edit: I am not saying that certain rules should not be in place though. I do like the waiting periods and gun safety education requirements. I don't want some semi unstable guy picking up a gun right after he gets canned and what not. And also I don't want some moron that has never even seen a bullet pick up a gun without at least knowing what it can do in reality.

--------------------
Does he know our big secret?
Has one of us confessed?
'Bout the wires circuits and motors
Buried in our chest

Posts: 2463 | From: Utarrrrggggghhh!!!!!!!! | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 14, 2004 06:03      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CommanderShroom:
I know people that can pick up the real thing for me. No AK-47 semi-auto. Full auto modded mac-10s and bigger. Needless to say these are people that do some questionable things. But even they choose a 9mm or .380 over an assault rifle.

Anyone I know that has a weapon like that play with them. "Let's get out in the hills and shoot stuff" kind of mentality. Not postal worker types.


Be very glad you don't know any
nutters like this

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10668 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
drunkennewfiemidget
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2814

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 14, 2004 06:34      Profile for drunkennewfiemidget     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
Having witnessed gun control debates on this forum before, and coming from a country where it is a now a complete non issue, it seems completely insane and inexplicable to me (and I suspect everyone else outside the US) that anyone can try to argue in favour of your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I just cannot begin to understand how ASM and his like can believe one iota of their own arguments.

The US is a very very strange place.

I might have quoted this particular piece before, but even if I have, it deserves rewriting:

Dennis Miller on gun control: (And I'm paraphrasing, because I don't remember his exact words..)

You know, as soon as you listen to this gun control debate, the first thing a gun-advocate will point out to you is our constitutional right to bear arms. Aside from the fact that all of the forefathers who signed this bill were probably in their dementia state of syphilis when they came up with and signed this bill, it was created at a time when having a gun was a NECESSARY REQUIREMENT FOR SURVIVAL. At any time, the british could come over the hill ready to kick some yankee ass because they wanted their land back. Owning a gun is no longer necessary for survival.

Posts: 4897 | From: Cambridge, ON, Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
spungo
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1089

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 14, 2004 07:28      Profile for spungo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibo:
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
...My opinion: Humans refuse to believe that they are the cause of misery in this world, and as such will blame inanimate objects and forces of nature for their suffering.......

So it won't make a difference to you if you are shot with a BB gun or an AK-47 since it won't be the inanimate object doing the damage?
[Big Grin] Marvellous. I take my hat off to you, Sir.

--------------------
Shameless plug. (Please forgive me.)

Posts: 6529 | From: Noba Scoba | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bibo
BlabberMouth, the Next Generation
Member # 1959

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 14, 2004 10:14      Profile for Bibo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now here's something scary that was on the local news today.

Michigan:
Today, the State Senate could decide whether to lower age requirements for hunting. Right now, you must be 14 to hunt deer, bear and elk with a gun. A proposed bill would allow eleven year olds to get a firearm's license if they turn twelve during the year the license was issued.
Some argue the change could threaten the safety of other hunters. The House already approved the measure. 12 year olds can already hunt small game using firearms.


My dad gave me a shot gun on my 12th birthday and looking back on it that was way too young! Even though I went through the safety courses it was still too young! And now they want to drop it to 11 !?! [Eek!]

I remember going pheasant hunting at age 12 walking down rows of cornfields with 4 other people spread out and we could not see each other. And me out for only the 2nd time hunting with a 410 shot gun at the ready. It just seems crazy [crazy]

Posts: 1641 | From: Grand Rapids, MI | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0



homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam